Psychological Reports, 2010, 107, 2, 447-462. © Psychological Reports 2010
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION: DISTINCT AND
POTENTIALLY SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTS?1, 2, 3
CHRISTIAN HEISS
MATTHIAS ZIEGLER
Te!nis!e Universität Mün!en
Humboldt Universität zu Berlin
KAI ENGBERT!AND!PETER GRÖPEL
RALF BRAND
Te!nis!e Universität Mün!en
Universität Potsdam
Summary.—Self-leadership and volition are conceptually similar concepts. Both
propose self-inuence strategies that aim to improve the motivation and self-direction necessary to perform well. The present study assesses whether self-leadership
strategies maintain construct-specic variance when compared with the similar
strategies of volition. Results from a questionnaire study (N"="320) indicate that
self-leadership and volitional strategies are distinguishable and only moderately
(r"=".33) correlated. Self-leadership, therefore, supplements volition during goal attainment. Findings are discussed in light of the Rubicon model of action phases.
Self-leadership is a relatively new construct rooted in organizational
psychology (Manz, 1986). This construct is intuitively appealing for practitioners because it provides individuals with ready-to-use strategies to
guide behavior (e.g., self-reward, visualizing successful performance).
However, the construct validity of measures of self-leadership remains
questionable because the relationships of these measures to questionnaires that tap other constructs have barely been investigated (Neck &
Houghton, 2006). The present research focuses on the construct validity of
self-leadership. We investigate whether a well-tried self-leadership measure displays incremental validity when compared with a questionnaire
that assesses the similar concept of volition.
Self-leadership
Self-leadership is dened as an inner-leading process to achieve selfdirection and self-motivation necessary to perform (Neck & Houghton,
2006). This self-leading process is further specied as an intentional use
of self-leading strategies, which can be divided into three general categories labeled as behavior-focused strategies, constructive thought pa#ern
strategies, and natural reward strategies (Houghton & Neck, 2002). Be1
Address correspondence to Christian Heiss, Chair of Sport Psychology, Technische Universität München, Connollystr. 32, 80809 München, Germany or e-mail (heiss@sp.tum.de).
2
The authors are grateful to Lena Lämmle for assistance during data analyses and to Urs
Neumair and Sven Maier for helpful comments on earlier dra$s of this manuscript.
3
This research (IIA1-071002/08-09) was generously supported by grants of the Federal Institute of Sport Sciences (BISp).
DOI 10.2466/01.03.07.14.PR0.107.5.447-462
13Heis447-462.indd 447
ISSN 0033-2941
9/3/2010 10:43:07 AM
448
C. HEISS, ET AL.
havior-focused strategies are adapted from the concept of self-management that aims to meet external goals and to facilitate the accomplishment of necessary but possibly unpleasant tasks. These strategies include
self-observation, self-goal se#ing, self-reward, self-punishment, and selfcueing. Constructive thought pa#ern strategies constitute the rst facet
through which self-leadership expands self-management, which was limited to the aforementioned behavioral strategies. Cognitive strategies are
designed to build and maintain functional thinking pa#erns, including
evaluation of beliefs and assumptions, positive self-talk, and visualization
of successful performance. Natural reward strategies constitute the second facet through which self-leadership expands self-management. They
emphasize the enjoyable aspects of a given task, including e%orts to incorporate more pleasant and enjoyable features into a task, changing realizations of the task by focusing on the task’s rewarding aspects, or purposefully choosing a task that a person enjoys doing (Houghton & Neck, 2002).
In summary, self-leadership represents a broader concept of self-inuence by addressing external and internal standards in relation to performed actions (e.g., evaluating personal meaningfulness of a given task).
Thus, e%ective self-leaders know why they want to perform a task, rather than feeling obligated to perform it (e.g., through recognizing rewards
that result from performing activities themselves).
Volition
The concept of volition was introduced to bridge the gap between
choice and action. Volition maintains intentions, especially when they
compete with strong alternative action tendencies and whenever a goal
su%ers from insu&cient motivational support (Kuhl & Goschke, 1994).
Following the theory of volitional functioning (Kuhl, 2000), volition was
decomposed into a set of conscious and unconscious strategies that aimed
to support goal-striving processes. These strategies include motivation
control (i.e., enhancing the subjective a#ractiveness of an intended action;
Kuhl, 2000), emotion control (i.e., disengaging from a sad mood if it renders the enactment of an intention di&cult; Gross, 1999), a#ention control
(i.e., focusing a#ention on aspects that are relevant for implementing the
current intention; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), self-determination (i.e.,
choosing and performing self-concordant goals; Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998),
decision control (i.e., using mechanisms to arrive at a decision quickly and
avoid rumination; Kuhl, 1994), and coping with failures (i.e., disengaging
easily from intrusive thoughts and failure, rather than persevering with
an aversive experience; Kuhl, 1994).
Prior Research on Construct Validity
Research that focuses on the construct validity of questionnaires that
13Heis447-462.indd 448
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
449
measure self-leadership or volition is limited to investigating relationships with associated personality traits.
Inspecting the construct of self-leadership, Houghton, Bonham, Neck,
and Singh (2004) reported three ndings in their study. A positive, significant relationship was observed between self-leadership and personality
traits of extraversion and conscientiousness. Self-leadership was distinct
from personality traits on the lowest level of abstraction, representing selfleadership strategies. Self-leadership and personality were statistically indistinguishable at the construct level.
However, the la#er nding must be regarded with great caution. The
authors constructed a general personality factor consisting of extraversion, emotional stability, and conscientiousness. Even though such general factors have been proposed (Rushton & Irwing, 2009), they are highly
controversial (Ashton, Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009) and might simply
reect variance due to socially desirable responding (Ziegler & Bühner,
2009). In addition, the latent correlation observed between this factor and
the general self-leadership factor is corrected for a#enuation. These corrections boost latent correlations strongly if loadings are weak, as was the
case in that study (Bühner, Krumm, & Pick, 2005). The authors did not directly test whether a true correlation existed. Thus, there is ample reason
to doubt the conclusions drawn. For this reason, this relationship is re-examined in the present study.
Inspecting the construct of volition, Kuhl (2000) showed that relationships with personality were consistent with theoretical assumptions of
volitional functioning. The ndings illustrate negative correlations with
neuroticism, in particular for skills of decision and failure control, and
positive correlations with extraversion for skills of self-determination and
motivation control (Forstmeier & Rüddel, 2008). Moreover, Kuhl and Kazén (2003) pointed out that personality traits such as neuroticism determine individual sensitivity to negative a%ect, whereas volitional competence determines individual regulation of negative a%ect to initiate and
enact intended actions.
Research Comparing Self-leadership With Volition
Thus far, self-leadership and volition have been analyzed separately;
no empirical research compares self-leadership and volition in one coherent study to assess construct overlap. Such concept comparisons are limited to theoretical considerations, leading to ambiguous results. On the one
hand, it seems reasonable to suspect that self-leadership and volition are
indistinguishable on a conceptual level. Both concepts have similar functions during the goal-a#ainment process (e.g., to ensure goal a#ainment).
In particular, this similarity refers to behavioral strategies of self-leadership (e.g., self-cueing), which aim to accomplish necessary but possibly
13Heis447-462.indd 449
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
450
C. HEISS, ET AL.
unpleasant tasks. Similarly, the volitional strategy of a#ention control can
be used to shield a goal intention when the goal set appears less a#ractive.
In addition, conceptual similarities can be identied in intended outcomes
because both concepts aim to improve the motivation and self-direction
necessary to perform well.
On the other hand, it seems equally reasonable to suspect that the
concepts can be distinguished. At least in part, self-leadership has a di%erent scope compared with volition because proposed strategies can be used
to assist motivational goal-se#ing and goal-evaluation processes. For example, using a strategy such as positive self-talk facilitates individual condence about set goals and helps to end deliberation processes about goal
engagement. In addition, strategies such as self-reward or the evaluation
of beliefs and assumptions assist individuals in evaluating the appropriateness of performed actions. These motivational processes are not within the scope of volition. In particular, volitional strategies are designed to
cope with failure and setbacks, which, in turn, is not within the scope of
self-leadership. Thus, it can be argued that self-leadership may provide
a complementary set of strategies, compared with volition, which can be
used to assist in goal se#ing and goal evaluation.
Goal of Present Study
The concept of self-leadership may be redundant in relation to the
concept of volition (Markham & Markham, 1995), although researchers
argue that the distinct nature of self-leadership is primarily based on its
unique set of self-leading strategies (Neck & Houghton, 2006). Until now,
this suggestion has lacked empirical support because no empirical research has been done to assess whether these self-leadership strategies
maintain construct-specic variance when compared with similar strategy-based concepts, e.g., volition (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998). For this reason, in the present study, self-leadership and volition were examined from
a construct validation perspective. This perspective avoids unwarranted
substantive conclusions and inadequate applications of the constructs
(Diefendor%, Hall, Lord, & Stream, 2000).
The magnitude of empirical overlap between self-leadership and volition was investigated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA). These results were conrmed in conrmatory factor analyses (CFAs). Discriminant validity was assessed by inspecting correlations of self-leadership
and volition related to associated Big Five personality traits (McCrae &
Costa, 1999) by using latent regression analysis.
M
Participants
Undergraduate students (N"="320; 186 women, 134 men) took part in
13Heis447-462.indd 450
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
451
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
the study. Their mean age was 24.2 yr. (SD"="4.5). All subjects participated
voluntarily and signed a le#er of consent to participate. They were told
that the data obtained would be used exclusively for research purposes
and recorded in such a manner that participants could not be identied,
directly or through identiers linked to the subject. Therefore, approval
by an institutional ethics board was not necessary. At the end of the study,
participants were given 10 Euros for their participation.
Measures
Self-leadership, volition, and personality were measured with validated questionnaires. Psychometric properties of all scales used are listed
in Table 1.
TABLE 1
P P  S  M S-, V,  P
Theoretical
Mapping
Scale
Self-leadership Self-goal se#ing
Visualization of successful performance
Self-talk
Evaluating beliefs and assumptions
Self-observation
Self-cueing
Self-punishment
Focusing on natural rewards
Self-reward
Volition
Self-motivation
Self-determination
Self-relaxation
A#ention control
Coping with failure
Decision control
Personality
Openness
Consciousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
No. of
Items
M
SD
! (for
scale)
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
12
12
5
4
4
4
4
3.71
3.31
3.32
3.43
3.90
3.37
3.76
3.80
3.71
2.56
2.75
2.35
2.42
4.59
5.58
4.00
3.72
3.82
3.09
2.98
0.64
0.83
0.79
0.67
0.60
1.05
0.79
0.57
0.96
0.55
0.52
0.58
0.78
2.73
3.12
0.67
0.62
0.82
0.71
0.84
0.71
0.81
0.77
0.72
0.71
0.83
0.83
0.45
0.94
0.77
0.71
0.78
0.92
0.73
0.77
0.71
0.72
0.80
0.74
0.75
Self-leadership strategies.—Self-leadership was measured by using the
Revised Self-leadership Questionnaire (RSLQ; Houghton & Neck, 2002)
in its German version from Andressen and Konradt (2007), labeled the
RSLQ–D. The questionnaire consists of 27 items in nine subscales. The
subscales are as follows: self-goal se#ing (example item: “I establish specic goals for my own performance”), self-reward (“When I have successfully completed a task, I o$en reward myself with something I like”), selfpunishment (“I tend to be tough on myself in my thinking when I have
not done well on a task”), self-observation (“I pay a#ention to how well
13Heis447-462.indd 451
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
452
C. HEISS, ET AL.
I’m doing my work”), self-cueing (“I use wri#en notes to remind myself of
what I need to accomplish”), focusing thoughts on natural rewards [“I seek
out activities in my work (school) that I enjoy doing”], visualizing successful performance (“I visualize myself successfully performing a task before
I do it”), self-talk [“Sometimes I talk to myself (out loud or in my head) to
work through di&cult situations”], and evaluating beliefs and assumptions
(“I think about and evaluate the beliefs and assumptions I hold”). Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors 1:
Not at all accurate and 5: Completely accurate. Adequate reliability and
construct validity of the RSLQ–D have already been demonstrated (Andressen & Konradt, 2007).
Volitional strategies.—The volitional strategies under investigation
were motivation control, emotion control, a#ention control, self-determination, decision control, and coping with failure. The respective scales
were taken from two questionnaires: the Volitional Components Inventory (VCI; Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) and the Action Control Scale (ACS–
90; Kuhl, 1994). Consisting of four items each, the subscales of the VCI
are as follows: motivation control (example item: “I am capable of nding
the pleasant aspects of an initially unpleasant activity”), emotion control
(“I can reduce my tension level if it becomes disturbing”), a#ention control
(“When I want to concentrate on something my thoughts o$en wander”),
and self-determination (“I feel that most of the time I really want to do the
things I do”). Participants responded to all items on a 4-point Likert-type
scale with anchors 1: I completely disagree and 4: I completely agree. In
the present study, internal consistency reliability of all scales was greater than !">".70. This resembles prior ndings (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998;
Fröhlich & Kuhl, 2004).
The ACS–90 subscales measuring decision control and coping with failure consisted of 12 items each. Items describe stressful situations accompanied by two alternative ways of coping with each situation. Participants
are asked to select the response that best resembles their personal way of
coping with the situation. An example item of the decision-related dimension is, “When there are two things that I really want to do, but I can’t do
both of them: (a) I quickly begin one thing and forget about the other thing
I couldn’t do (high decision control), or (b) It’s not easy for me to put the
thing that I couldn’t do out of my mind” (low decision control). An example item of the failure-related dimension is, “When I am told that my work
has been completely unsatisfactory: (a) I don’t let it bother me for too long
(high coping with failure), or (b) I feel paralyzed” (low coping with failure). In the present study, both decision- and failure-related dimensions
showed adequate internal consistency reliability of .77 and .73, respectively, similar to prior ndings (Diefendor%, et al., 2000).
13Heis447-462.indd 452
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
453
Personality.—Personality traits were measured with an abridged version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI–K; Rammstedt & Oliver, 2005). The
BFI–K consists of 21 items that measure personality with ve subscales,
following the Five-Factor Model of Personality (McCrae & Costa, 1999).
Therein, extraversion (example item: “I see myself as someone who is talkative”), neuroticism (“I see myself as someone who is depressed, blue”),
conscientiousness (“I see myself as someone who does a thorough job”),
and agreeableness (“I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselsh
with others”) are measured with four items, whereas openness to experience
(“I see myself as someone who is original, comes up with new ideas”) is
measured with ve items. Participants responded by using a 5-point Likert-type scale with anchors 1: Not at all true and 5: Completely true. Su&cient reliability and construct validity of the BFI–K have been demonstrated (Rammstedt & Oliver, 2005).
Statistical Analyses
Data were analyzed in three steps. First, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with maximum likelihood method and promax rotation was
used to explore whether the two concepts could be di%erentiated. EFA
was performed with half of the total sample to cross-validate results later. As the interest was the extent to which self-leadership and volitional
subscales overlap, subscale scores were used for the analysis. To select
the number of factors to be extracted, the minimum average partial test
(O’Connor, 2000) was applied.
The model suggested by the EFA was specied and tested with AMOS
17, which calculated a CFA with the other half of the sample. Two alternative models implied by theoretical considerations regarding relationships
between self-leadership and volition were also tested to see if the model
identied in the EFA had the best t.
Latent regression analysis was performed to assess whether individual self-leadership and volitional competence are distinct from associated
personality traits of the Big Five.
R
Descriptive statistics are listed for all study variables in Table 1.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Statistical prerequisites for conducting an EFA were satisfactorily fullled (Bartle#’s test of sphericity, "²"="737.00, df"="105, p"<".01; Kaiser-MeyerOlkin measure of sampling adequacy"=".81). The minimum average partial
test suggested a two-factor solution, which explained 43.9% of the total
variance. Table 2 shows that Factor 1 mainly encompassed the respective
self-leadership subscales, whereas Factor 2 comprised all volitional subscales.
13Heis447-462.indd 453
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
454
C. HEISS, ET AL.
TABLE 2
F S  S-  V S
Theoretical
Mapping
Self-leadership
Volition
Scale
Factor 1
Factor 2
h2
Self-goal se#ing
Visualization of successful performance
Self-talk
Evaluating beliefs and assumptions
Self-observation
Self-cueing
Self-punishment
Focusing on natural rewards
Self-reward
Self-motivation
Self-determination
Self-relaxation
Coping with failure
Decision control
A#ention control
.77
.72
.72
.60
.52
.49
.43
.36
.21
.19
.16
'.14
!.29
.10
'.04
.06
.01
'.06
'.07
.02
'.02
!.27
.23
.08
.73
.65
.61
.58
.49
.45
.61
.53
.50
.35
.27
.24
.20
.23
.06
.64
.50
.34
.33
.27
.19
Note.—N"="320. Extraction method: maximum likelihood. Rotation method: promax with
Kaiser normalization. Highest factor loadings and substantial double loadings are printed
in bold. h2"="communality.
Communalities of subscales, ranging from .07 (self-reward) to .64
(self-motivation), pointed to the possibility that several subscales (e.g.,
focusing on natural rewards; a#ention control) are not represented well
by the two-factor solution. Consequently, an alternative three-factor solution was tested, consistent with the eigenvalue-greater-than-one test. Factor loadings indicated increased overlapping variance between factors, resulting in an ambiguous pa#ern matrix. The added factor could not be
interpreted as unique because of multiple double loadings. Therefore, it
was concluded that the two-factor solution is more appropriate to examine the extent to which self-leadership and volitional strategies overlap
because the pa#ern matrix reveals more consistent and clearer interpretable factors.
Consistent with the theoretical assumption that there should be empirical overlap between self-leadership and volitional strategies, the pattern matrix shows substantial double loadings between the two factors.
Using Kline’s recommended (1997) critical value of .20 as a cuto%, selfpunishment, focusing on natural rewards, and coping with failure were
identied as showing substantial double loadings, indicating overlapping variance between factors. The correlation between the two factors
extracted was moderate (r"=".33), which means that the two factors indeed
overlap on a few subscales but also have su&cient specic variance. Thus,
analysis suggests self-leadership and volition can be modeled with two
correlated factors.
13Heis447-462.indd 454
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
455
Conrmatory Factor Analyses
The purpose of the CFA was to cross-validate the EFA model more
rigorously and to compare it with a one-factor model and a two-factor
model.
Model 1 specied self-leadership and volition as loading on a single
latent variable (g-factor), proposing that self-leadership and volition are
indistinguishable constructs. Model 2 posited that self-leadership and volition are distinct (i.e., uncorrelated) constructs, with all self-leadership
subscales loading on a latent variable labeled self-leadership and all volitional subscales loading on a latent variable labeled volition. Within the
measurement model, double loadings were specied from EFA results
(self-punishment, focusing on natural rewards, and coping with failure).
Model 3 mirrored Model 2 but included a correlation between the two latent variables. This model is fully in line with the EFA results reported
earlier.
Goodness of t of the models was evaluated by using the chi-squared
statistic and the comparative t index (CFI), the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). Because chi square is a%ected by violations of multivariate normality in these data (multivariate kurtosis"="12.55, critical ratio"="4.97),
a Bollen-Stine bootstrap correction (1,000 bootstrap samples) was performed. Multiple t indices were used because they provide a more conservative and reliable evaluation of the solution. Following recommendations of Beauducel and Wi#mann (2005), an acceptable model t was
dened by the following criteria: CFI">".95, SRMR"<".80, and RMSEA"<"0.06.
Note that the CFI tends to incorrectly reject trait models with low loadings, making less strict cuto%s necessary (Beauducel & Wi#mann, 2005).
To ascertain the best #ing model, Akaike’s information criterion (AIC)
was estimated additionally. Table 3 summarizes the t indices for all three
models.
One double loading found in the EFA was not signicant (motivation
control on self-leadership), whereas all other loadings were signicant.
As can be seen in Table 3, all "2 values were signicant (p"<".001), indicating poor model t. However, the mist was not large. Model 3, replicating
EFA results, performed best. The latent correlation was .37. This nding
validates results obtained by EFA and indicates that self-leadership and
volition share empirical overlap on a scale level, but should be regarded
as conceptually distinguishable constructs. To achieve the best power for
the next analysis, a multiple group invariance test (Byrne, 2004) was used
to test whether both subsamples could be combined. With this approach,
four types of invariance were tested: congural (the same measurement
and structural model is used in both samples), measurement weights (cor-
13Heis447-462.indd 455
9/3/2010 10:43:17 AM
456
C. HEISS, ET AL.
TABLE 3
S  F I  T CFA M
Model
"2
df
CFI
1
2
3
Invariance testing
Congural
Measurement weights
Structural covariances
Measurement residuals
428.29*
217.05*
203.75*
90
86
85
.47
.80
.82
.149
.107
.081
.150
.098
.094
.139, .169 610.55
.082, .114 285.06
.077, .110 273.75
380.76*
397.12*
402.20*
427.87*
70
53
50
35
.84
.84
.84
.83
.075
.079
.079
.080
.062
.059
.059
.058
.054, .071
.051, .068
.051, .067
.051, .066
SRMR RMSEA
90%CI
AIC
520.76
503.12
502.20
497.87
Note.—Maximum likelihood. CFI"="comparative t index; SRMR"="standardized root mean
square residual; RMSEA"="root mean square error of approximation; CI"="condence interval;
AIC"="Akaike’s information criterion. *p"<".001.
responding loadings are equal in both samples), structural covariance (the
covariance between the latent variables is equal), and measurement residual invariance (subscales have equal measurement error). Because all
models were nested, they could be compared using "2 di%erence tests. Results showed that no model signicantly di%ered from another model by
simply assuming congural invariance (see Table 3). Thus, the samples
were merged again.
Latent Regression Analyses
Within the latent regression model, volition and self-leadership were
regressed on the Big Five. Results showed that Neuroticism (#"="'.59,
p"<".001), Openness (#"=".19, p"<".001), and Conscientiousness (#"=".50,
p"<".001) explained a large part of volition (R2"=".64). For self-leadership,
the same predictors had signicant regression weights, Neuroticism
(#"=".16, p"<".01), Openness (#"=".21, p"<".001), and Conscientiousness (#"=".44,
p"<".001), which explained a considerably smaller part of self-leadership
variance (R2"=".31). The latent correlation controlling for the Big Five was
.61. Clearly, a suppression e%ect occurred. Thus, self-leadership is primarily related to Conscientiousness, whereas volition is primarily related to
emotional stability (reverse pole of Neuroticism). These results indicate
that self-leadership and volition have di%erent correlations with the Big
Five personality traits. Moreover, neither one could fully be explained by
the Big Five.
D
The aim of the present study was to examine whether self-leadership
and volition are distinguishable constructs. Results of EFA revealed that
subscales can be identied as two correlated factors interpretable as selfleadership and volition. Results of the conrmatory factor analysis also
indicate that a two-factor model ts best. Latent regression analyses re-
13Heis447-462.indd 456
9/3/2010 10:43:18 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
457
veal di%erential correlation pa#erns with the Big Five personality traits. In
this regard, Conscientiousness accounted most for self-leadership, whereas Emotional Stability accounted most for volition. In summary, there is
empirical evidence that self-leadership and volition are distinguishable,
albeit moderately correlated concepts. The magnitude of empirical overlap between self-leadership and volitional strategies as measured is smaller than expected.
This result may be explained by the fact that self-leadership and volitional strategies serve di%erent functions within goal a#ainment. Whereas
self-leadership strategies assist the motivational processes of goal se#ing
and goal evaluation, volitional strategies support the goal-striving process. This observation is in line with the theory of volitional functioning
(Kuhl, 2000). Here, it is assumed that all volitional strategies share two
similar functions: they are benecial for overcoming barriers or di&culties
and for ensuring goal striving. Results point to the possibility that the two
concepts should be portrayed as supplemental. For example, self-leadership strategies are primarily benecial for creating goal intention, whereas volitional strategies ensure that this goal intention is transformed into
behavior, particularly when di&culties appear. Thus, the assumption that
self-leadership comprises a unique construct (Neck & Houghton, 2006)
should be so$ened: self-leadership is supplemental to volition. Supplemental aspects of self-leadership compared with volition become evident when both concepts are regarded from a meta-perspective on action
phases, e.g., in light of the Rubicon model (Beckmann & Gollwitzer, 1987;
Heckhausen & Gollwitzer, 1987).
F. 1.(Interaction of self-leadership and volitional strategies within the goal a#ainment process using the Rubicon model of action phases.
13Heis447-462.indd 457
9/3/2010 10:43:18 AM
458
C. HEISS, ET AL.
The Rubicon model of action phases structures the route from wishes to actions into four phases. The predecisional phase is characterized
by deliberation between di%erent goals. A$er deciding on a concrete goal
(and therefore having crossed the Rubicon), the individual then moves to
the preactional phase, in which concrete actions are planned. Therea$er,
actions implied by the chosen goal are executed (actional phase). In the
postactional phase, the person nally evaluates the successfulness of goal
a#ainment. The predecisional and the postactional phases are regarded
as motivational, whereas the preactional and the actional phases are volitional (Gollwitzer, 1991). Volitional strategies may be used predominantly
when goal pursuit becomes demanding, which is likely in the preactional and the actional phases (Gollwitzer, 1991). For example, the volitional strategy decision control supports the end of planning activities and
the commitment to begin acting when possible action alternatives are numerous and the risk of ruminating is high. A#ention control and coping
with failures are needed during the actional phase to focus on a task and
to cope with unexpected defeats and di&culties. In contrast, self-leadership strategies may be used predominantly when goals are set and evaluated, which takes place in the predecisional and the postactional phases.
For example, focusing on natural rewards or visualization of successful
performance both facilitate the decision-making process and enhance the
motivation to set a goal. Similarly, self-leadership strategies such as selfreward or the evaluation of beliefs and assumptions both facilitate evaluation of goal a#ainment.
The assumption that self-leadership and volitional strategies can be
used in di%erent action phases should not tempt one, however, to constrain the use of self-leadership or volitional strategies to these specic
phases exclusively. Either self-leadership (e.g., focusing on natural rewards) or volitional strategies (e.g., motivation control) can be used to
compensate for insu&cient motivation and to facilitate accomplishment
of necessary but unpleasant tasks, as shown by the moderate correlation
(.33) between constructs.
However, low communalities of subscales (e.g., self-reward or a#ention control) indicate that several subscales are represented inadequately
through the corresponding latent factor. A possible explanation for selfleadership subscales might be that they are not deduced from a consistent
theoretical framework.
A possible explanation for volitional subscales might be that existing measures mix volitional abilities and volitional strategies. Volitional
abilities indicate whether a person is able to use volition when necessary.
For example, a#ention control is captured as reversed with items such as,
“When I want to concentrate on something, my thoughts o$en wander.”
13Heis447-462.indd 458
9/3/2010 10:43:18 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
459
The subscale assesses whether an individual is able to control a#ention or
not. Volitional strategies indicate what a person does to apply volition. For
example, motivational control is captured with items such as, “When I am
performing a di&cult task, I intentionally focus on positive aspects.” The
subscale assesses a strategy because ready-to-use advice on how to enhance the a#ractiveness of performed actions can be inferred.
Future Research and Limitations
To date, the uniqueness of the self-leadership concept has been based
on conceptual considerations, emphasizing that this concept provides individuals with a unique set of self-leading strategies (Neck & Houghton,
2006). This assumption was tested empirically for the rst time, demonstrating that proposed self-leadership strategies are only partially distinct
from volition. Although results point to the possibility that the self-leadership construct is worthy of its own standing, this possibility can be regarded as a prerequisite for studying self-leadership more systematically.
For that purpose, results specify that motivational-enhancing aspects of
self-leadership (e.g., positive self-talk) are essential supplements to volition. In contrast, existing overlap indicates that encompassed strategies to
assist goal-striving processes are redundant because they are already captured by volition.
The relatively large amount of explained variance also raises the question of whether volition might not be be#er understood as a combination
of di%erent Big Five facets, mainly Neuroticism and Conscientiousness.
Future research should therefore use broader Big Five questionnaires that
allow the di%erentiation of facets and compare them with volition. The
same, of course, holds true for self-leadership. Thus, the results presented
here specify directions for rening the theory of volition and self-leadership in future research.
Integrating self-leadership into the Rubicon model of action phases
allows be#er di%erentiation of the interactions between self-leadership
and volition within the goal a#ainment process. This integration claries
self-leadership’s function during goal a#ainment, is a rst step in dening the concept’s standing within motivational psychology, and provides
a valuable framework to spur future research.
Some limitations of the study need to be addressed. First, the notion that self-leadership and volitional strategies serve di%erent functions within the goal-a#ainment process resulted from an interpretation
of data. This assumption does not represent an empirical nding, and
researchers are encouraged to test it. For instance, experimental studies
could systematically test at di%erent action phases of the Rubicon model to assess whether the use of self-leadership or volitional strategies can
13Heis447-462.indd 459
9/3/2010 10:43:18 AM
460
C. HEISS, ET AL.
be mapped to specic action phases. Second, the data suggest conceptual
and measurement problems regarding self-leadership and volition. This
could limit conclusions drawn from this research. Prospective research
should elaborate correlations of self-leadership and volition with convergent and discriminant constructs (e.g., personal initiative; Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997) as well as criteria. For example, experimental
studies could assess whether associated dependent variables (e.g., number of goals set or number of goals reached) can be predicted uniquely
from these concepts.
Showing that self-leadership is conceptually distinguishable from volition is prerequisite to its potential for further elaboration beyond organizational psychology, particularly in applied domains such as clinical
or sports psychology, because it provides individuals with ready-to-use
strategies to guide behavior. However, self-leadership must be complemented not just on theoretical grounds, but also on empirical grounds,
before being transferred to other domains. Hence, this research can be regarded as a rst step, as a contribution to understanding of self-leadership
on a conceptual level, and as a starting point for e%orts to extend its usefulness beyond organizational psychology.
REFERENCES
A, P., & K, U. (2007)(Messung von Selbstführung: Psy)ometris)e
Überprüfung der deuts)spra)igen Version des RSLQ [Measuring self-leadership: psy)ometric test of the German version of the RSLQ]. Zeitschri$ für Personalpsychologie, 6, 117-128.
A, M. C., L, K., G, L. R., &  V, R. E. (2009)(Higher-order factors
of personality: do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79-91.
B, A., & W, W. W. (2005)(Simulation study on t indexes in CFA
based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 41-75.
B, J., & G, P. (1987)(Deliberative and implemental states of mind:
the issue of impartiality in pre- and postdecisional information processing. Social
Cognition, 5, 259-279.
B, M., K, S., & P, M. (2005)(Reasoning"="working memory"*"a#ention.
Intelligence, 33(3), 251-272.
B, B. M. (2004)(Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS graphics: a road
less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 272-300.
D, J. M., H, R. M., L, R. G., & S, M. L. (2000)(Action-state orientation: construct validity of a revised measure and its relationship to work related variables. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 250-263.
F, S., & R, H. (2008)(Measuring volitional competences: psychometric
properties of a short form of the Volitional Components Questionnaire (VCQ) in
a clinical sample. The Open Psy!ology Journal, 1, 66-77.
F, M., F, D., H, T., L, K., & T, A. (1997)(The concept of personal
initiative: operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Organizational and Occupational Psychology, 70, 139-161.
13Heis447-462.indd 460
9/3/2010 10:43:19 AM
SELF-LEADERSHIP AND VOLITION
461
F, S., & K, J. (2004)(Das Selbststeuerungsinventar [The Volitional Components Inventory]. In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Tests und Trends:
Motivation. Gö#ingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
G, P. M. (1991)(Abwägen und Planen. [Deliberating and planning]. Gö#ingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
G, J. J. (1999)(Emotion regulation: past, present, future. Cognition & Emotion, 13,
551-573.
H, H., & G, P. M. (1987)(Thought contents and cognitive functioning in motivational versus volitional states of mind. Motivation and Emotion,
11, 101-120.
H, J. D., B, T. W., N, C. P., & S, K. (2004)(The relationship between self-leadership and personality: a comparison of hierarchical factor structures. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19, 427-441.
H, J. D., & N, C. P. (2002)(The Revised Self-leadership Questionnaire: testing a hierarchical factor structure for self-leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 672-691.
K, P. (1997)(An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge.
K, J. (1994)(Action versus state orientation: psychometric properties of the Action
Control Scale (ACS–90). In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Volition and personality:
action versus state orientation. Gö#ingen, Germany: Hogrefe. Pp. 47-59.
K, J. (2000)(A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: the
dynamics of personality systems interactions. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pp.
111-169.
K, J., & F, A. (1998)(Decomposing self-regulation and self-control: the
Volitional Components Inventory. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life span. New York: Cambridge Univer. Press. Pp.
15-49.
K, J., & G, T. (1994)(A theory of action control: mental subsystems, modes
of control, and volitional conict-resolution strategies. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann
(Eds.), Volition and personality: action versus state orientation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Hogrefe. Pp. 93-124.
K, J., & K, M. (2003)(Handlungs- und Lageorientierung: Wie lernt man, seine
Gefühle zu steuern? [Action and state orientation: how do you learn to control
your feelings?] In J. Stiensmeier-Pelster & F. Rheinberg (Eds.), Tests und Trends:
N.F. Band 2. Diagnostik von Motivation und Selbstkonzept. Gö#ingen, Germany:
Hogrefe. Pp. 201-219.
M, C. C. (1986)(Self-leadership: toward an expanded theory of self-inuence processes in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 11, 585-600.
M, S. E., & M, I. S. (1995)(Self-management and self-leadership reexamined: a levels-of-analysis perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 343-359.
MC, R. R., & C, P. T., J. (1999)(A ve-factor theory of personality. In L. A.
Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research. New York:
Guilford Press. Pp. 139-153.
M, M., & B, R. F. (2000)(Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247-259.
N, C. P., & H, J. D. (2006)(Two decades of self-leadership theory and
research: past developments, present trends, and future possibilities. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 270-295.
13Heis447-462.indd 461
9/3/2010 10:43:19 AM
462
C. HEISS, ET AL.
O’C, B. P. (2000)(SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments and Computers, 32, 396-402.
R, B., & O, P. J. (2005)(Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI–K):
Entwicklung und Validierung eines ökonomischen Inventars zur Erfassung der
fünf Faktoren der Persönlichkeit [Short version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI–K):
development and validation of an economic inventory for assessment of the ve
factors of personality]. Diagnostica, 51, 195-206.
R, J. P., & I, P. (2009)(A general factor of personality in 16 sets of the Big
Five, the Guilford-Zimmerman Temperament Survey, the California Psychological Inventory, and the Temperament and Character Inventory. Personality and Individual Di%erences, 47, 558-564.
Z, M., & B, M. (2009)(Modeling socially desirable responding and its effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 548-565.
Accepted August 18, 2010.
13Heis447-462.indd 462
9/3/2010 10:43:19 AM